Lord Wyndfordhaving presented a petition from a parish in Cumberland against the New Poor-law Act,
The Bishop of Llandaffhoped the House would forgive him for occupying its attention for a few minutes; but he could not help expressing his surprise at a remark from the noble and learned Lord yesterday, that the number of petitions presented in favour of the abolition of Church-rates was greater than the number which had been presented against this measure; and that, even if that were not allowed, the number of signatures attached to the former would far exceed the number attached to the latter.
Lord Brougham, said that he might set the rev. Prelate at ease on that point at once, by informing him that he was labouring under an entire mistake, because what he had stated was just the reverse of that which was now imputed to him. He had said that the number of petitions against the abolition of Church-rates no doubt greatly exceeded the number in favour of the abolition, but that the number of signatures attached to the petitions in favour of the abolition very much exceeded the number of those attached to the petitions against it.
The Bishop of Llandafffelt obliged to the noble and learned Lord for setting him right in that respect.
Lord BroughamNor was it yesterday I said so, but some time before; so that you are wrong there also.
The Bishop of Llandaffwas prepared to contend that the signatures of persons who did not pay Church-rates did not merit much regard. The grievance did not fall upon them, but upon those who paid the Church-rates, therefore it was but fair to throw out of the consideration of the petitioners all the non-rate-payers. Undoubtedly the House could not analyse the petitions in that way, but he wished, for the sake of the general impression that might be made on the public, that the distinction he had suggested should be observed. With regard to the petitioners against the abolition of Church-rates, that observation was not applicable, because there the non-rate-payers were most entitled to be heard, inasmuch as they would be most interested if the Church-rates were abolished. The non-rate-payers, therefore, who became petitioners against the abolition of Church-rates, and especially the poor, merited the attention of their Lordships. As to the others, they might be divided into two classes, and those alone upon whom the grievance fell were entitled to attention. It might be said that a person had a right to come to their Lordships' House, not to complain of an injury or a personal grievance, but to complain of a national grievance. If that were so, they could only come to their Lordships in the character of advisers, and so far they might be entitled to be heard. As a matter of grievance, he was sure that the distinction made in favour of justice the noble and learned Lord would readily admit. There were petitions of that character presented by a right rev. Friend of his from labourers in Devonshire, praying that they might not be deprived of the privileges they now enjoyed. It was said by his right rev. Friend, that that petition was attempted to be counteracted by a wealthy individual. The number of signatures to a petition was but an indifferent test for the extent of the grievance of which the petitioners complained. In conclusion he would say, that under the disapprobation which had been expressed by the petitioners against the Church-rates, there was a far more important principle—the petitioners objected to Christianity 556 being recognised or supported by the State. However that might be coloured over, it was at the bottom of what was recommended and desired; and it was for their Lordships to consider whether they would give countenance to a proposition of that nature, or whether they would not openly avow that their determination was not to consent to any measure that had for its object the prevention of Christianity being protected by the State. He was sure that their Lordships would sooner surrender their birth-rights than give up that union which had existed for a thousand years. The right rev. Prelate then presented several petitions from different parts of Wales against the abolition of Church-rates.
§ Viscount Melbournecould not agree with the distinction drawn by the right rev. Prelate between the classes of petitioners, for in the well-being and the welfare of Christianity all had an equal interest and an equal interest also in the settlement of this question on the principles which would promote the peace and welfare of the country. He therefore could by no means acquiesce in the distinction drawn by the right rev. Prelate between the classes of petitioners. All had an equal right to lay their opinions before their Lordships' House as to the measures which they thought necessary to be adopted by the Legislature, or which were under the consideration of the Legislature. But he (Lord Melbourne) was still more unwilling to acquiesce in the statement with which the right rev. Prelate concluded his speech. The right rev. Prelate had said that if the prayers of the petitioners were acceded to, Christianity would not be any longer recognised as the religion of the country. He begged leave to protest against such an imputation being cast upon those who had petitioned their Lordships' House, and he felt sorry that it had come from a quarter which he respected.
The Bishop of Llandaffsaid, that he did not intend to charge the petitioners with a wish that Christianity should not prevail, or that it should not be generally received as the religion of the country; but he contended, that if the prayers of the petitioners were acceded to, they would lead to the separation of Christianity from the Government of the country. If those prayers were acceded to, then it would go forth that the Government regarded religion with indifference, and as a matter of 557 no concern. The legitimate inference to be drawn from the prayer of the petitioners was, not that they wished to disparage religion, but that they contemplated objects which their Lordships ought never to consent to.
Lord Broughamsaid, that in all the petitions he had presented—and he believed he had presented the greater number in favour of the abolition of Church-rates—the grounds put forward for their abolition were religious, and not political. The right rev. Prelate has most justly said in the admission with which he had closed his speech, that he did not mean to impute any lukewarmness on the subject of religion to Dissenters, and certainly if he had done so he would have committed a very great error. It was on the ground that they considered the rate injurious to the interests of religion, as well as oppressive to them individually, and hard upon them conscientiously, that the great bulk of the prayers of the petitions were founded. He entirely agreed with his noble Friend (Lord Melbourne) that whether they had an interest or not in the question, they had a right to come to the House and make known their sentiments and their wishes. As to persons of a certain description not paying rates, or not being of that class which might be supposed to be best capable of entering into the discussion of high and difficult points of policy, whether the class of persons who had signed the petition which the right rev. Prelate had presented were qualified by their habits to discuss questions of a high and difficult nature he really would not take on himself to say. He was not disposed to pronounce them incapable of discussing those questions, but it did happen that a considerable majority of those who had given their consent to the petition gave it, not by signing their names, but by affixing crosses, commonly called their marks.
The Bishop of Llandaffhad not denied the right of the lowest members of the community, not only to state their grievances, but to give their opinion as to the policy of any public measure. He only stated that the petitions of those who had paid no rates came from those who suffered no grievance, and that therefore they were not entitled to great consideration.
§ Petition laid on the table.